Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Milne Bay]

Just some general points:

30 guns isn't that much unfortunately; but its better than what we have now. 6x guns / Bty; 3x Bty / Regt (gives 3 units of fire - one per BG); 3x Regt + School (another Bty) means 60 guns. So we'll get half what is probably the minimum for an honest capability - although 8 gun Bty are what is needed for a modern, armoured manoeuvre fight. I would hate to go to 4 gun Bty like they do now; but even then that's 40 guns.

Currently there are 4x gun / Bty - so 44 RAA pers. Add in the HX77 driver and that's 48. A K-9 SPH has a crew of 5, so each Bty (assuming 4 ) has 28 spare bodies. Cut 4 across to the K10 and 8 across to RAEME and you are still looking at a net saving of pers - plenty to afford a long range fires capability (especially if you look at the ARes for that one). Even a 6 gun K-9 Bty would be personnel neutral. @Volkodav - that covers most of the bill for maintenance and support with ease. The big logistic problem remains resupplying the guns from 2nd or 3rd line. The Army has forgotten how much the guns chew up - and what 26 Tpt Sqn is meant to be used for.

SPH are required for a mech force as they can (a) keep up and (b) have a sufficient weight of fire to combat an enemy mech force.

The M777 are likely to stay for a while - unfortunately. When it comes down to it, they are a net drag on the Army's capability (especially when a SPH battery achieves IOC).

Knowing how the title Protected Mobile Fires came about, @buffy9, it is deliberately done to exclude a GOAT solution. Protected demands the crew can operate under protection, mobile provides the self-propelled bit, fires is self explanatory. No SPG is armoured like a IFV or MBT; but most of them have similar protection to the CRV. That's enough - they aren't meant to be under direct fire.

@ngatimozart - you could use the hull - but why? Boxer offers better choice's there as it's already modular. Of course, there is a proposed 155 mm module for a Boxer, so it may end up being the same hull! Note that L19-7B is buying the mobile SAM though, so it will be on the ORBAT.

It is a huge win for Army. Now to stick the landing....

Just reflecting on the numbers that have been announced.
A greenfield site in Geelong will be selected to manufacture these vehicles - to manufacture just 30 K9 and their associated K10s.
Hardly seems economic.
Unless this is the initial order, and over time there will be more follow on orders, - which I expect may turn out to be the case.
MB

 

[Takao]

Just reflecting on the numbers that have been announced.
A greenfield site in Geelong will be selected to manufacture these vehicles - to manufacture just 30 K9 and their associated K10s.
Hardly seems economic.
Unless this is the initial order, and over time there will be more follow on orders, - which I expect may turn out to be the case.
MB

It does if you look at in from a non-Australian view.

The chances of a factory being targeted by DPRK forces in South Korea? Rather good. Geelong? Not so much.

It grants Seoul strategic depth in an ally that still has UN agreements, a good relationship with and reasonably equal standing with the US. It's more win for them than for us. And from our point of view, they may be an ability for a second flight of SPH to raise the fleet in the future - all the easier for being from Victoria.

That's before you consider if the K21 wins Land 400-3.

 

[Milne Bay]

It does if you look at in from a non-Australian view.

The chances of a factory being targeted by DPRK forces in South Korea? Rather good. Geelong? Not so much.

It grants Seoul strategic depth in an ally that still has UN agreements, a good relationship with and reasonably equal standing with the US. It's more win for them than for us. And from our point of view, they may be an ability for a second flight of SPH to raise the fleet in the future - all the easier for being from Victoria.

That's before you consider if the K21 wins Land 400-3.

Hadn't considered that.
I wonder if it is a pointer?
MB

 

[Nurse]

So it looks like defence is safe again for a few more years. A common platform for SPG/NASAM etc seems to make the most sense. Tracked or wheeled is the big question. Can HIMARS be adapted to other platforms or are they a completely separate system?
Cheers

 

[Traveller]

So it looks like defence is safe again for a few more years. A common platform for SPG/NASAM etc seems to make the most sense. Tracked or wheeled is the big question. Can HIMARS be adapted to other platforms or are they a completely separate system?
Cheers

The link below has some historical commentary (WWII) on wheeled SPG including modern examples. Looking at this and other material it seems the jury is still out as soft-recoiling guns and wheels arguably still have a place.


MilPub: Towed vs Tracked?...Or perhaps wheeled?

 

[ngatimozart]

The link below has some historical commentary (WWII) on wheeled SPG including modern examples. Looking at this and other material it seems the jury is still out as soft-recoiling guns and wheels arguably still have a place.


MilPub: Towed vs Tracked?...Or perhaps wheeled?

This is an article well worth reading and covers many aspects of artillery: 105mm, 155mm or Something In-between? - Think Defence

"On-board ammunition in SPs is limited, particularly if there are several ammunition types. This makes ease and speed of getting ammunition into the gun an important consideration. Tracked SPs are best because, providing they have a rear hull door, their floors are lower to the ground hence ammunition handling is quicker and easier. Tracks are also less likely to be damaged than tyred wheels if a battery receives counter-battery fire.

The modern trend for wheeled artillery is a reminder of an artillery maxim, all too frequently forgotten, that ‘in peace the cry is for mobility, in war for weight of shell’. This problem is a consequence of peacetime training where ammunition is limited and its real effects are not apparent, but there is a lot of scope for impressive rushing around. In reality guns’ cross country mobility is limited by their loaded ammunition vehicles. ... Generally, towed 105mm will be faster than 155mm but spadeless self-propelled guns will always be the fastest, not least because they have ammunition onboard and ready to fire."

I think that answers the questions about what is the better type of SPG. Also note that towed artillery and SPG both have their pros and cons. Towed is better for sustained fires, however it is prone to counter battery fire. SPG can shoot and scoot but it has problems laying down sustained barrage fire.

The author of the article, Observer is, I am given to understand, a UK defence expert.

 

[BigM60]

So it looks like defence is safe again for a few more years. A common platform for SPG/NASAM etc seems to make the most sense. Tracked or wheeled is the big question. Can HIMARS be adapted to other platforms or are they a completely separate system?
Cheers

Apart from commonality to the SP gun, what are the benefits in fitting NASAMS to it? A big heavy carrier, needs a big transporter to get it to the theater of operations. It's thirsty. It's much more maintenance intensive than a high mobility wheeled carrier. The carrier offers no protection to the exposed launching system any way. I see an increase logistic effort with only minor gain.

If we really want to put it on an armoured vehicle , then lighter options are available. Australian NASAMS will be high mobility wheeled carriers and box launchers which gives us great options in deploying these systems. Do we really need to add a third platform?

 

[Todjaeger]

Apart from commonality to the SP gun, what are the benefits in fitting NASAMS to it? A big heavy carrier, needs a big transporter to get it to the theater of operations. It's thirsty. It's much more maintenance intensive than a high mobility wheeled carrier. The carrier offers no protection to the exposed launching system any way. I see an increase logistic effort with only minor gain.

If we really want to put it on an armoured vehicle , then lighter options are available. Australian NASAMS will be high mobility wheeled carriers and box launchers which gives us great options in deploying these systems. Do we really need to add a third platform?

My take on this is that the answer really depends on who (as in which formations) NASAMS is intended to protect. If the unit is a motorized formation, then fitting NASAMS to a Bushmaster or similar might be a workable solution. OTOH if the formation is to be kitted out to a significant degree with wheeled IFV's like the Boxer, then a version of the Boxer vehicle with NASAMS would likely be a better choice. By the same token, if the protected units are to be composed of LAND 400 Phase 3 vehicles and/or MBT's like the M1 Abrams, then a heavier, tracked and armoured vehicle would likely serve as a better base for NASAMS.

The carrier vehicle needs to have sufficient mobility to keep up with the formations requiring their presence, over the types of terrain the formations will be moving through, and under the conditions which the formations will be exposed to. In many respects it is much like the requirement for SPG's or Protected Mobile Fires, where towed artillery support is not really suited to accompanying a mechanized armoured force, especially during a maneuvering engagement.

Now the Australian plans might be for the NASAMS vehicle to not operate that close to direct contact with hostile ground forces, and/or not be required to keep up with wheeled or mechanized forces in the field, in which case a broader range of vehicle types could be suitable.

 

[BigM60]

My take on this is that the answer really depends on who (as in which formations) NASAMS is intended to protect. If the unit is a motorized formation, then fitting NASAMS to a Bushmaster or similar might be a workable solution. OTOH if the formation is to be kitted out to a significant degree with wheeled IFV's like the Boxer, then a version of the Boxer vehicle with NASAMS would likely be a better choice. By the same token, if the protected units are to be composed of LAND 400 Phase 3 vehicles and/or MBT's like the M1 Abrams, then a heavier, tracked and armoured vehicle would likely serve as a better base for NASAMS.

The carrier vehicle needs to have sufficient mobility to keep up with the formations requiring their presence, over the types of terrain the formations will be moving through, and under the conditions which the formations will be exposed to. In many respects it is much like the requirement for SPG's or Protected Mobile Fires, where towed artillery support is not really suited to accompanying a mechanized armoured force, especially during a maneuvering engagement.

Now the Australian plans might be for the NASAMS vehicle to not operate that close to direct contact with hostile ground forces, and/or not be required to keep up with wheeled or mechanized forces in the field, in which case a broader range of vehicle types could be suitable.

I think we are forgetting that this is not a short range system. With a 20 km range, it doesn't need to be shoulder to shoulder with the armoured formation if that type of formation needed to be defended. Earlier Western armoured versions of SAM systems were shorter range Roland and Rapier systems. You may remember the US Army version of Roland was to be mounted on a modified M109 - it was a concept that didn't reach fruition. The Roland system was quite compact with the radar being mounted with the launcher. Armored Rapier needed a separate carrier for the Blindfire radar. Putting all of the NASAMS launchers, radars, EO sensors and command post onto SP gun platforms makes even a single battery a considerable logistic effort or do we want to develop a compact launcher combined with the sensor? There may be an argument now for a SPAAG that can deal with UAV's and anything else that may leak past the NASAMS. I am sure all the the competitors in Land 400 could come up with something.

 

[Traveller]

....

 

[Raven22]

The platform for the NASAMs has already been chosen. The mobile system will be based on Hawkei, while the containerised system will be based on a L121 truck. I don’t think there’s a great deal of point arguing it should be on any other platform.

 

[old faithful]

Regarding Australian NASAMs, anyone know which missile will be used?
Amraam ER? AIM120D?

 

[Morgo]

Regarding Australian NASAMs, anyone know which missile will be used?
Amraam ER? AIM120D?

AMRAAM ER is the standard used by Kongsberg / Raytheon. Which, happily, is the same as an ESSM (which the RAN will be packing a bunch of new VLS’ full of in coming years) with a different seeker.

Given the combined volume of AIM120Ds for RAAF, ESSM for RAN and NASAMS for Army is likely into the thousands I wonder what discussions have been had with Raytheon about setting up a production line in Australia. Seems like a common sense answer to me and good for our industrial base.

 

[Todjaeger]

The platform for the NASAMs has already been chosen. The mobile system will be based on Hawkei, while the containerised system will be based on a L121 truck. I don’t think there’s a great deal of point arguing it should be on any other platform.

Agreed, if the base vehicle has already been selected then such current discussion is rather moot. The decision might be worth revisiting for review at some point in the future, depending on the conops of land force elements and what the then current and emerging aerial threats might be. OTOH, the ADF might handle aerial threats in a different fashion in the future too...

 

[Raven22]

Agreed, if the base vehicle has already been selected then such current discussion is rather moot. The decision might be worth revisiting for review at some point in the future, depending on the conops of land force elements and what the then current and emerging aerial threats might be. OTOH, the ADF might handle aerial threats in a different fashion in the future too...

Why would the CONOPs of land force elements or current and emerging aerial threats change what platform you bolt NASAMs to?

 

[MickB]

Just reflecting on the numbers that have been announced.
A greenfield site in Geelong will be selected to manufacture these vehicles - to manufacture just 30 K9 and their associated K10s.
Hardly seems economic.
Unless this is the initial order, and over time there will be more follow on orders, - which I expect may turn out to be the case.
MB

Can you confirm that K10s are included, from memory I understood that K10s were not part of the original Australia request.

 

[Milne Bay]

Can you confirm that K10s are included, from memory I understood that K10s were not part of the original Australia request.

Of course not, that was an assumption of mine.
But, what is the point of building the K9 for protected mobility artillery if you have to stand in the open for re-supply.
And I see little point in establishing a manufacturing facility for just 30 units.
MB

 

[Massive]

TA total of 30 systems was mentioned, which is a surprisingly high number.

I was reflecting on whether the numbers suggest that there would be 2 batteries of 4 guns in each brigades RAA regiment?

Then a single battery of M777.

Thoughts?

Massive

 

[MARKMILES77]

Of course not, that was an assumption of mine.
But, what is the point of building the K9 for protected mobility artillery if you have to stand in the open for re-supply.
And I see little point in establishing a manufacturing facility for just 30 units.
MB

I believe Hanwha has offered 30 K9s and 15 K10s. I.e. one K10 to support two K9s.
K9 carries 48 shells and K10 104.
So a single K10 can fully resupply two K9s.
A single battery of Four K9s and two K10s carries exactly 400 shells.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Also interesting to note that the K9 and K10 have the same engine and transmission as the proposed Hanwha Redback AS21.